| Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]
|
|
Dr. Murrison: My concern with clause 7 has to do with the phrase ''in the public interest''. I know that Lord Fowler was greatly exercised by that in another place, and railed against it. We are right to be concerned because the phrase can mean all sorts of things. We need to be clear about who decides what is or is not in the public interest, and about the circumstances in which something might be deemed to be in the public interest. It is easy to put the words almost glibly into the Bill; they appear often in legislation. However, to protect the liberties of individuals we need to be clear about what is in the public interest. The agency will deal with much sensitive information—some of the most sensitive information that it is possible to deal with, in the light of the terrorist threat and others. I suspect that the term ''the public interest'' will send shivers up the spine of many of us. It can be and is misused—not just in this country—to justify certain actions. Precisely who will deem something to be in the public interest under the Bill, and who will decide that in the final event? Will the Minister define specifically the instances in which she envisages that invocation being used? Miss Johnson: Neither the Bill nor other legislation defines when publication would not be in the public interest. All the circumstances of a case have to be considered, and those are not readily specified in legislation. Ultimately, as I have said, it is for the courts to decide whether publication is not in the public interest. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, we all accept that, given the nature of some of the material that the agency might deal with, there will be times when publication would not be in the public Column Number: 87 interest. National security and defence interests might be prejudiced, or information might touch on confidential aspects of an individual's health.The reference in subsection (2)(c) to the public interest is to balance the references in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) to duties in statute. I understand that, without it, the implication might be that common law duties could be ignored. The agency, as a public authority, is obliged by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with human rights—that includes the right to respect for private and family life in article 8—which are given effect in domestic law by a mixture of statute and common law. Without the reference to a public interest test in subsection (2)(c), the power to publish in subsection (1) could be interpreted as overriding interests such as those protected by the duties of confidentiality. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that subsection (2) is not code for, ''The agency cannot publish material that Ministers do not want published.'' I think that he was hinting at that in the second part of his remark. The question of whether publication is not in the public interest is to be determined objectively—ultimately, in the event of a challenge, by the courts. In that respect, the limitation in subsection (2)(c) does not differ from those in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). No doubt there will be times when the agency will want to consult Ministers and others before taking a decision to publish. However, the decision rests with it. Subsection (1) identifies the agency as the body that has the power to publish, and as the body in subsection (2) that is subject to the few limitations that are set out in that power. That was discussed at some length in another place and I believe that consensus was achieved as a result of the debates. Question put and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House. Column Number: 88 Dr. Murrison: Before we wrap up, may I say what a pleasure it has been to serve on this Committee. It has been a consensual Committee and a great deal of humour has been expressed all round. I congratulate you, Mrs. Adams, on the way in which you and Mr. Forth have discharged the office of Chairman. I thank the Clerks, also, for the assiduous way in which they have conducted their business, and the messengers who have patiently stood through our deliberations. I also thank the Minister for the helpful way in which she has approached our proceedings. Miss Johnson: I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking you, Mrs. Adams, and Mr. Forth for your chairmanship, and in thanking members of the Committee for their good humour during the useful debate of this short Bill. It is my pleasure to record that this has been the briefest Committee stage of a Bill for which I have been responsible as a Minister. The short time that it has spent in Committee is no doubt partly as a result of the nine and a half hours' consideration that it received in another place, but also because it is well thought through and short. I have been responsible for many of the largest Bills, with the longest-lasting Committee stages, in the history of the House, so I am very happy to have served on one of the shorter ones. I am grateful to hon. Members for their co-operation throughout. Mr. Burstow: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Westbury and the Minister. I add my thanks for the work that was done in the other place. I am sure that that helped to facilitate the speedy passage of the Bill through this Standing Committee. The Chairman: I thank everybody on the Committee, the Minister, the Opposition, the Whips for expediting matters, the doorkeepers for their patience and the Clerk, without whom I could not function. I thank my co-Chairman, Mr. Forth, and my assistant, Mr. Hall, and everyone for their good humour and, most of all, their brevity, which will allow this Chairman to get an earlier flight home. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Adams, Mrs. Irene (Chairman) Brennan, Kevin Burstow, Mr. Francois, Mr. Hall, Mr. Mike Howarth, Mr. George Johnson, Miss Melanie McDonagh, Siobhain McKenna, Rosemary Murrison, Dr. Ryan, Joan Teather, Sarah Ward, Claire
|
| |
| Prepared 1 July 2004 | |
